Should the state be involved in the marriage game?

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Tercy]

I suppose there's some for and against. Historically governments would involve themselves in issues like this because (amongst other things) it benefits the state in some way (e.g. encouraging reproduction to keep the workforce and military populated, reducing the burden of children that don't have a stable family to raise/support them, etc). You might say that if a society depends on the government regulating family life, that's symptomatic of a deeper failing somewhere.

 

Even in a hypothetical world where governments serve their moral duty and have no ulterior motives (e.g. profit), a lot of questions along this vein - like the questions around whether the government should involve itself in what substances you can and cannot use in your own human body and such - boil down to the tradeoff between maintaining individual freedom; protecting people from other people's (mis)use of their individual freedom; and protecting people from themselves. It's easy to say things like "the government has no place controlling drug use" but then imagine a dystopian future of rampant and debilitating drug abuse, people would soon be saying "why isn't the government doing anything about this?"

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:18 PM, Tercy said:

if a society depends on the government regulating family life, that's symptomatic of a deeper failing somewhere.

.

 

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:18 PM, Tercy said:

boil down to the tradeoff between maintaining individual freedom; protecting people from other people's (mis)use of their individual freedom; and protecting people from themselves.

.

[Phalena]

In Germany for instance the state has to be involved since no religious marriage is possible without having a civile marriage before-hand. It's just how the place works XD.

And your ideas might sound good in the first minute but over here it would just end up in EVEN MORE burocracy which would result in the impossiblity to marry in the first place. Special taxes for instance is linked to taking care of the partner rather than just be able to leave when they become sick. It's a way to secure the own life and marriage too, historically is linked to having children, so cheaper taxes shall enable couples to be able to raise them without sliding into poverty. (Does not mean it's too succesful, though). (IMHO Germany hates poor people and especially children but that's beside the point).

 

If they are no rewards for marrying most people wouldn't do it anymore since there wouldn't be any priviliges and advantages over being unmarried. The truth is that marriage doesn't really have anything to do with love, at all but with being secured in cases when you wouldn't be able to take care of yourself anymore.

 

The idea with being married in order to adopt was actually a good one since the state believed that maried couples are les likely to seperate, so that the adopted children are more likely to have to parents over a long time. Just imagine the shock when an adopted child would need to go through the divorce of their adoptive parents. That would mean the parents are taken away AGAIN. That's whay the state came to the conclusion that married couples are better candidates for adoption in the first place, especially since single parents often enugh haven't got the ressources to enable the child to have a good youth outside of poverty and being an outsider.

Reality is unfortunately not as easy, though :(.

 

Another problem that I see is: How to be able to avoid abuse? I've read a story a while ago where the groom and his family were treating the bride wonderfully up until the two were married. A few months into the marriage and she was being treated like trash. So, how to check for possible abuse? Testing?

If we use psycholgical tests to see if people fit a lot of people wouldn't be allowed to have any relationship anymore since most of them would be considered sickos... ... Since psychologists seem to tend to see any dominant personality trait as possible symptom of a bad mental condition...

 

If you want to choose freely you have to accept the risk of making the wrong choice. Freedom cannot exist without risk and a little portion of fear, too.

Society needs consistencies if they do not want to crumble which results in norms. There are enough people who are afraid without them and don't know what to do then. A basic structure can be a prison but also a way to find the wanted independence. Absolute freedom often renders people imobile since they become disoriented. We just have to accept that man+woman=norm is this basic structure. It gives orientation. As soon as we realize thgis we can have a choice: Accepting or no accepting. The states are starting to move to enable are possible combinations. I am negative the same would be possible in religions. At least, in these times.

 

So, we just need patience and keep on pushing the views of society gently until it has become normal.

 

 

That was long...

Sorry for that. I tend to come from one thought to the next and bubbling on and on until people cannot follow mme anymore. I could keep going right now but...

Enough for today ^^;. (Sorry for any mistakes, I have probably made).

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:16 PM, MiffKeks said:

EVEN MORE burocracy

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:16 PM, MiffKeks said:

If they are no rewards for marrying most people wouldn't do it anymore

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:16 PM, MiffKeks said:

Another problem that I see is: How to be able to avoid abuse?

.

 

 

[Alawyn-Aebt]

1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said:

I believe that maximisation of practical individual liberty should be the primary aim of the state. 

That is a personal political position, and if others have different feelings regarding the purpose of the state that could lead to widely varying answers. 

 

Here is the problem I see with your idea, even if it was all handled by interpersonal agreements you would still need someone to enforce them, for example someone relatively impartial and with the resources to outlast even the richest most tenacious people, like the state. If the state is trying to maximize freedom and equality it will need to provide enforcement to those agreements, be they interpersonal or including the state. Directly or indirectly the state must be there, otherwise the rich could take advantage of the poor in situations like you propose. Individual freedom for one may be increased, but overall freedom of the society and of other groups within the society may decrease.

 

Now I do agree that the state should not favor one type of marriage over another, nor should it limit adoption or tax benefits to a certain marriage category. All I think is that in marriage/civil unions the state must play a part in order to create a more equal and in the long-run freer society.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 2:45 PM, Aebt said:

That is a personal political position, and if others have different feelings regarding the purpose of the state that could lead to widely varying answers

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 2:45 PM, Aebt said:

idea, even if it was all handled by interpersonal agreements you would still need someone to enforce them, for example

.

 

[andreas1033]

Yep, all these things will be used by the state, to try and make society the way they want.

 

Like if a state is having low births, it would give incentives to people to have more babies. Likewise, if too many babies are being born, they probably take away that incentive.

[uhtred]

I would like to see marriage treated as a legal contract between people.  Various organizations (including churches) can provide sample contracts, but people should be able to write their own.  

 

Some though has to go into what restrictions there are on what types of contracts people can sign 

 

Then people can delcare themselves "married" through whatever social or religious mechanism they want.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:31 PM, andreas1033 said:

Yep, all these things will be used by the state, to try and make society the way they want.

.

[Dreamsexual]

.

[banoffeepie]

I don't think governments give a damn about people marrying in terms of a religious ceremony. Divorce is now closer to one in two, than one in three as it was. So it's just a short-term contract of cohabitation as far as the government and taxes etc  are concerned.

 

I'm in France and civil pacts are very common but couples very often say they are married without it being the case.

[danvers]

7 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Why was the big hassle over gay marriage necessary? 

For one thing, there are  many religions that don't allow gay marriage. And there are situations like employers providing health insurance to their employees and those employees' families where marriage status can have a major impact on people's lives. For example, a lesbian couple might be just as loving and committed as a straight couple, but if homophobic religious institutions are the ones in charge of marriages, only the straight couple can get married. And then an employer could offer benefits to the straight couple that they don't offer the lesbian couple, because the lesbian couple isn't married. Getting the state involved means that the lesbian couple can go to a courthouse to get married and then get the same benefits as the straight couple.

 

Also, unless you want to get rid of every legal thing that has to do with marriage (filing taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, etc.), the state still needs a way to at least keep track of marriages.

 

Note: This is all based on my experiences in the US.

 

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 8:39 PM, Linh Cinder said:

 

Also, unless you want to get rid of every legal thing that has to do with marriage (filing taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, etc.), the state still needs a way to at least keep track of marriages.

. 

[Skycaptain]

Simple. States are often heavily influenced by the prominent religion, so follow the teachings of the appropriate holy texts. 

Sometimes a genuine attempt to reform this can misfire, in Britain now a heterosexual couple have fewer state sanctioned partnership options than any other pairing. 

 

The best description of marriage I've ever seen is "A very public pronouncement of a very private intention" 

 

 

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Skycaptain]

@Dreamsexual, It's more that the state should be separate from the church. That was just about fine when a nation was monotheistic and an uneducated population knew no better. But this is not the case today. State and church interference has resulted in inequality, and that is wrong 

[Sally]

13 hours ago, uhtred said:

I would like to see marriage treated as a legal contract between people. 

Marriage IS a legal contract between people.  The contract is necessary because the marriage will make of two people a legal financial entity.  But it is a relatively minimal contract; it assures that if the two people wish to  break that contract, there are procedures that must be undertaken to make certain that the responsibilities to children of the  marriage and the financial resources of the marriage are divided equitably.

 

If two people do not want to engage in a contract, they don't have to  marry.  Marriage is completely voluntary.  

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 6:05 AM, Skycaptain said:

It's more that the state should be separate from the church.

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 6:15 AM, Sally said:

The contract is necessary because the marriage will make of two people a legal financial entity. 

.

 

 

[uhtred]

10 hours ago, Sally said:

Marriage IS a legal contract between people.  The contract is necessary because the marriage will make of two people a legal financial entity.  But it is a relatively minimal contract; it assures that if the two people wish to  break that contract, there are procedures that must be undertaken to make certain that the responsibilities to children of the  marriage and the financial resources of the marriage are divided equitably.

 

If two people do not want to engage in a contract, they don't have to  marry.  Marriage is completely voluntary.  

What I was suggesting is that there be nothing "special" about the marriage contract from the government's point of view, and that there be many possible contracts.

 

What we call "marriage" varies a lot, even for heterosexual couples. It can be two people who both work and want a symmetric relationship where they live together and share resources.  It can be a very asymmetric relationship where one person works, and the other raises kids.  It may or may not imply a commitment to exclusivity or to regular sex.  It can be a trophy-spouse situation where there is a financial transaction in return for desirable companionship. 

 

Maybe one of the problems with marriage is that since there are not lots of contract options, people may go into marriage with very different ideas of what they are really agreeing to. 

[Gloomy]

I agree marriage should be a contract, nothing more. The only restriction mandated by the state should be that those involved in the contract are consenting adults, other than that it shouldn't matter which gender(s) are involved or how many people are involved. 

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Ashmedai]

Given that marriage is a legal contract basically giving spouses certain legal rights with each other, specifically to do with estates, property and the like, especially since it's accommodating for more or less a breeding contract.

[Sally]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:53 AM, uhtred said:

What I was suggesting is that there be nothing "special" about the marriage contract from the government's point of view, and that there be many possible contracts.

 

What we call "marriage" varies a lot, even for heterosexual couples. It can be two people who both work and want a symmetric relationship where they live together and share resources.  It can be a very asymmetric relationship where one person works, and the other raises kids.  It may or may not imply a commitment to exclusivity or to regular sex.  It can be a trophy-spouse situation where there is a financial transaction in return for desirable companionship. 

 

Maybe one of the problems with marriage is that since there are not lots of contract options, people may go into marriage with very different ideas of what they are really agreeing to. 

The government doesn't get into how the partners wish to handle their relationship.  The contract doesn't specify who works and who doesn't, or whether they have sex or who with, or any of the situations you mention.  The government simply ensures that if there are children, they are a legal responsibility of both parents, and if the marriage ends, there is an equitable distribution of debts/property.  That's it.  

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 8:40 AM, Sally said:

The government doesn't get into how the partners wish to handle their relationship

.

[uhtred]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

The government doesn't get into how the partners wish to handle their relationship.  The contract doesn't specify who works and who doesn't, or whether they have sex or who with, or any of the situations you mention.  The government simply ensures that if there are children, they are a legal responsibility of both parents, and if the marriage ends, there is an equitable distribution of debts/property.  That's it.  

But maybe the contract should cover those things.  Otherwise people can find themselves legally bound to a situation that wasn't what they expected / wanted. 

 

 

[Artistofnoname]

Obviously child marriages and any other forced marriages shouldn't be tolerated but otherwise the government shouldn't have a say.